Salim Kumar vs The Village Officer on 7 April, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 10235 of 2008(R)


1. SALIM KUMAR,S/O.SOMARAJAN,SREEVILASAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VELIYAM VILLAGE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :07/04/2008

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                         ===============
                     W.P.(C) NO. 10235 OF 2008 R
                    ====================

                  Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008

                              J U D G M E N T

Petitioner was granted Ext.P4 quarrying permit valid upto

26/3/2008. The complaint is that immediately thereafter, he was issued

Ext.P5 stop memo. It is challenging the stop memo, this writ petition has

been filed.

2. Now, it is submitted on behalf of the learned Government

Pleader that after Ext.P4 was granted, a neighbour by name

Sri.Jayachandran had submitted a complaint to the District Collector

complaining against the issue of Ext.P4 and alleging that damage will be

caused to his residential building. It is stated that on the instructions

received from the Collectorate, the Village Officer has issued Ext.P5. It is

also stated that enquiry will be held into the correctness of the grant with

notice to the petitioner and orders will be passed thereafter.

3. True the petitioner has been granted Ext.P4 quarrying permit.

But once complaint has been received from the residents in the

neighbourhood, the authorities are justified in issuing stop memo as

otherwise, since damage will be caused to those living in the

WPC 10235/08
:2 :

neighbourhood. Thus it is in that process, Ext.P5 has been issued. At the

same time, petitioner is also justified in complaining that no further

enquiry has been held on receipt of the complaint atleast with notice to

the petitioner.

4. In view of the pendency of the complaint as stated above, I

dispose of this writ petition directing that the District Collector, Kollam or

the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam shall issue notice to the petitioner

and the complainant, hear both of them and take a decision in this matter.

This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four

weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the District

Collector for compliance.

ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.

Rp